The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9

[ghtan]

Hi Retrobyter,

 

Isn't there a period between verse 26 and verse 27 in the Hebrew text? Then, isn't it the case that the subject of the verbs in verse 27 need not be the same third person singular subject in verse 26? I think that would be true in English. Furthermore, the actions of the subject in verse 27 seems inappropriate for the anointed one in verse 26 if the latter is referring to Jesus. For example, the ending of sacrifices elsewhere in Daniel (8:11, 11:31) is always done by an evil person. I doubt Daniel, who had no access to the New Testament, would have understood the ending of sacrifices as a righteous act.

[WilliamL]

...Some of the things I'd like comments on are:

• the purpose of the seventy weeks as described in v24.  When will those be accomplished or when were they accomplished.
• the prince who is to come
• who is it that makes the covenant and who are the many

but feel free to comment on any of it.  ...

The 70th week of Daniel 9 was fulfilled within 66-73 A.D., during the Jewish War with Rome that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.

Verse by verse:

Dan. 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city…

[The prophecy is for the remnant of Judah (Daniel’s people) and for Jerusalem, none else.]

to finish the transgression/peshah…

[Peshah means and refers to the revolt/rebellion/apostasy of the Aaronic priesthood, the one originally spoken of in Daniel 8:12, 13, 23. This took place when Antiochus Epiphanes, after being bribed, removed the pious Onias III from the high priesthood, and installed his apostatizing brother Jason; latter 170s B.C. 1 Macc. 2:15 calls the subsequent debasement of the priesthood and Temple “the apostasy” [apostasian].

Similar corruptions of the priesthood, including bribes, took place during the time of Roman rule. Jesus condemned it, and prophesied the desolation of the religious establishment and destruction of Jerusalem and Temple because of it. Matt. 23, esp. vs. 35-39.]

and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness…

[All accomplished by the Crucifixion and Resurrection.]

and to close up vision and prophecy…

[Matt. 11:13: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” Luke 16:16: “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it.”

OT prophecy – that of Daniel’s people – ended at John the Baptist. OT prophets had the Holy Spirit “come upon” them. Beginning at John, prophets were “filled with” it. The former phrase is never used by the NT, and the latter never by the OT.]

and to anoint the Most Holy [One]. [= Jesus, who became Melchizedek High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary.]

9:25 For the 7 and 62 weeks of years “unto Messiah the Prince,” I think most of us are in general agreement. Precise dates are irrelevant to the issue here.

9:26 And after the 62 weeks/sevens [of years], Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself.

[i believe most of us agree that this was fulfilled at the Crucifixion.]

And the people of the ruler who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and its end will come with a flood [of attackers]. And until the end of the war, desolations are decreed.

[The coming ruler was Vespasian, the commanding Roman general, then emperor, during the Jewish War of 66-73 A.D. “His people” destroyed and desolated Jerusalem and Temple in 70 A.D.; however, it was done in fulfillment of his policy and orders. Rebel Zealots and Idumeans also caused widespread desolations in the war, both in Jerusalem and throughout the Judean countryside.

Jesus prophesied about these events, and when and how they would take place:

Matt. 23:29, 35-38: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees…upon you may [shall] come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth… All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem… Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”

Jesus thus decreed a desolation upon the “house” of the apostatizing Jewish establishment, probably meaning both their lineage and their Temple.

Luke 19:43-44: “For the days shall come upon you [Jerusalem], that your enemies will build an embankment around you, and surround you and close you in on every side, and shall level you, and your children within you, to the ground, and they shall not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”]

9:27 And he will have caused to make strong/to prevail/to confirm [a] covenant for many one week [of years].

[“…he will have caused”: 3 masc. sing. Hiphil Perfect. This was Vespasian’s policy, which he established from the beginning of the war: for those Jews who would continue to submit to Rome’s civil authority, Rome would continue to maintain the peace and permit the Jews to allow only YHWH-worship in the land. But any place in the land that harbored rebellion against Rome, including Jerusalem and Temple, would be desolated.

Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Preface 8: “[Vespasian] took…some of its [Galilee’s] cities by treaties, and on terms.” III:ii:4: “…the inhabitants of Sepphoris…the largest city of Galilee…received Vespasian, the Roman general, very kindly, and readily promised that they would assist him…” III:ix:8: “Now the seniors of the people [of Tiberius]…fell down before Vespasian, to supplicate his favor… Vespasian…accepted of their rights hands by way of security…[and] the citizens opened to him their gates…”]

And in the midst of the week he shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering. And upon a wing/corner/extremity, appalling/desolating abominations [plural], even until the consummation decreed is poured upon the desolate.

[in 70 A.D., the “midst of the week/7 years” –- no mention here of the 3½ times/1260 days prophesied elsewhere in Daniel –- the Romans captured the Antonia Fortress on the northwest “corner/wing” of the Temple Mount, which provided access to the Temple complex via a narrow passage. War VI:i. Jewish Temple “sacrifice and (meal) offering ended” soon after, on Tammuz 17 = July 15. Ibid., VI:ii:1. The “desolating abominations” that ensued consisted of the most savage combat between the Romans and Jews, including instances of Jewish fratricide; piles of corpses within the Temple complex; and the Jews setting fire to the Temple’s own cloisters on the corner opposite the Roman-occupied Antonia. Ibid. VI:ii-iii. Also, the Romans began bringing their idolatrous ensigns (Aquilae) into the Temple precincts, to which sacrifices were offered. VI:iv:1; vi:1. The utter desolation by fire of the Temple occurred during its capture on Ab 9/10 = August 4/5; followed by the desolation of upper Jerusalem (Zion) in early September. The last stronghold of the Jewish rebellion, Masada, fell in 73.]

Thus, Daniel 9:24-27 provides an accurate summary of events in Judea from the First Coming of the Messiah up to the destruction of the Temple. It doesn’t mention at all

– any abomination of desolation of the Holy Place;

– the time of the end/latter time/latter days, or any similar term;

– the Great Tribulation/time of trouble such as never was;

– the saints, or any flight of God’s people;

– Messiah’s coming in the clouds, Divine Judgment, and/or the establishment of God’s kingdom;

– the coming prince’s demise;

– or the raising of the dead.

These topics are discussed elsewhere in Daniel’s End Time prophecies. Why none of them here? Because this is not a prophecy for the end of Church Age, but rather for the Jewish Age.

There is no scripture that prophesies the rebuilding of the Temple prior to the Second Coming of the Messiah in the clouds.

There is no scripture that says Jerusalem will be destroyed in the End Times.

There is no scripture that specifically speaks of a 7-year period in the End Times.

To summarize: everything prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27 was fulfilled by 70 A.D. No word or phrase – nothing – in the passage carries any unequivocal End Time terminology. This fact cannot be ignored, when contrasted with multiple apocalyptic passages elsewhere in Daniel.

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, ghtan.

 

Hi Retrobyter,

 

Isn't there a period between verse 26 and verse 27 in the Hebrew text? Then, isn't it the case that the subject of the verbs in verse 27 need not be the same third person singular subject in verse 26? I think that would be true in English. Furthermore, the actions of the subject in verse 27 seems inappropriate for the anointed one in verse 26 if the latter is referring to Jesus. For example, the ending of sacrifices elsewhere in Daniel (8:11, 11:31) is always done by an evil person. I doubt Daniel, who had no access to the New Testament, would have understood the ending of sacrifices as a righteous act.

 

No, there is no period there. Hebrew “punctuation" works differently than English. There is NO other subject given for these verbs! The “prince” cannot be the subject of these verbs any more than it could be the subject in verse 26! Remember: Cantillation divisions and markings in the Tanakh were NOT made until the 10th century A.D! “Verse” divisions were not made until the 15th century! The Tanakh, however, was finished about 400 years BEFORE Christ!

 

Second, the prophecy is a statement of fact without an assignment of “righteous” or “unrighteous.” And, no, Daniel frequently did NOT understand what was TOLD to him by the messenger from God! Of all that he was aware, he could only tell that something had gone awry in the prophecy.

[ghtan]

Hi Retrobyter,

 

Take a look at your own English translation of Dan 9:26-27. There is a period between verse 26 and verse 27. Hence the subject of verse 27 need not be the subject of verse 26. I agree with boldncourageous that the subject of verse 27 is likely the prince of verse 26 and the event in view is the destruction of the temple in AD70. The prince would then be an evil king and the act would be hostile. Crucially, that makes it consistent with 8:11 and 11:31; you will need a good reason for 9:27 to be an exception. But perhaps our different readings is not so important because we are still locating the fulfilment of 9:27 in the first century.

[ARGOSY]

Hi Retrobyter,

 

Take a look at your own English translation of Dan 9:26-27. There is a period between verse 26 and verse 27. Hence the subject of verse 27 need not be the subject of verse 26. I agree with boldncourageous that the subject of verse 27 is likely the prince of verse 26 and the event in view is the destruction of the temple in AD70. The prince would then be an evil king and the act would be hostile. Crucially, that makes it consistent with 8:11 and 11:31; you will need a good reason for 9:27 to be an exception. But perhaps our different readings is not so important because we are still locating the fulfilment of 9:27 in the first century.

 

Hi ghtan,    the word "people" means "countrymen". Just because the countrymen are doing a bad act, does not mean that the prince is also co-operating with that same bad act. ie the prince has nothing to do with the destruction of the temple, its his countrymen who destroy the temple, not him.

 

The fact that verse 25 refers to a coming prince, and verse 26 also refers to a coming prince is a strong hint they are the same prince, ie its Jesus who is the coming prince. Jesus was from Galilee, and it was Jesus' countrymen the Galilean zealots who morally destroyed the temple before the Romans even arrived. The Romans in effect were God's agent of justice to destroy what the Jews had already corrupted.

 

The Hebrew word for "destroy" means to ruin. This word was often translated as physical destruction but was also translated as meaning rotting, poisoning and moral corruption.

[ghtan]

Hi argosy,

 

Interesting suggestion, but is there any other place in the OT where the destruction of the temple was not physical but moral? You will need support from elsewhere in the OT for your figurative  interpretation. Otherwise, Daniel would have understood it to be physical. In your scheme, is the destruction of the city and sanctuary the same event as the ending of sacrifices in verse 27? If they are, you would also have to find instances of 'moral' ending of sacrifices in the OT. I think it far more natural to read them both as physical events. Perhaps I am missing something, but what have you against the more natural physical reading?  

[ARGOSY]

Hi argosy,

 

Interesting suggestion, but is there any other place in the OT where the destruction of the temple was not physical but moral? You will need support from elsewhere in the OT for your figurative  interpretation. Otherwise, Daniel would have understood it to be physical. In your scheme, is the destruction of the city and sanctuary the same event as the ending of sacrifices in verse 27? If they are, you would also have to find instances of 'moral' ending of sacrifices in the OT. I think it far more natural to read them both as physical events. Perhaps I am missing something, but what have you against the more natural physical reading?  

 

Hi,  all over the bible that same word shachath has been interpreted in many ways, but always means to "ruin".   Descriptions of the first temple destruction do not use the word "shachath", which means we must get that meaning elsewhere. Like I said it always means "ruin" but has been translated as "destroy" and sometimes "corrupt"

ep 3:7

I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted H7843 all their doings.

Mal 1:14

But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: H7843 for Iam a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.

Jdg 6:5

For they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came as grasshoppers for multitude; for both they and their camels were without number: and they entered into the land todestroy H7843 it.

 

Yes, a temple can be corrupted. (obviously  :-)

 

This destruction of the temple is a separate event to the ending of sacrifices, like I said the prince in v26 is Jesus. It follows that the "he" who confirms the covenant is Jesus, and its Jesus who is the final sacrifice that ends all spiritually correct sacrifices.

 

My problems with standard interpretations of Daniel 9:27 are multiple. A dramatic final 3.5 year period is mentioned all over the bible, starting with the "abomination" and ending with the second coming. Daniel 9 implies this when read with v24. Daniel 12 implies this if we correctly associate the resurrection with the second coming. Daniel 11 and Daniel 7 (3.5 years) also implicitly refer to a short period of rule followed by the end of the world. Rev 12 and 13 too.  2 Thess 2 does not give a timeframe but involves the same period, as does the warning of Jesus about Daniel's "abomination" in Matthew 24 , also followed by the second coming.   So my view interrupts the last 7 into a historical half, and a future half.

 

This is an improvement because grammatically when we read of a coming prince in one sentence, and then the coming prince in the next sentence, context is always indicating the same character unless the wording is ultra careful that a new character is introduced.

 

A certified plumber is coming. The coming plumber's team was late.

A wealthy prince is coming. The kinsmen of the coming prince were rebelling.

An anointed prince is coming. The countrymen of the coming prince will ruin the temple. 

 

IF you are honest with the text, there is one prince, not two.   This means that the promised Messiah takes precedence in the special 490 Jewish years, rather than the antichrist. Jesus confirmed God's promise when Jesus was anointed in the Jordan. 

 

The tribulation is 3.5 years long, not 7 years long according to other verses in Daniel and Revelation. 

[Enoch2021]

 

Hi Retrobyter,

 

Take a look at your own English translation of Dan 9:26-27. There is a period between verse 26 and verse 27. Hence the subject of verse 27 need not be the subject of verse 26. I agree with boldncourageous that the subject of verse 27 is likely the prince of verse 26 and the event in view is the destruction of the temple in AD70. The prince would then be an evil king and the act would be hostile. Crucially, that makes it consistent with 8:11 and 11:31; you will need a good reason for 9:27 to be an exception. But perhaps our different readings is not so important because we are still locating the fulfilment of 9:27 in the first century.

 

Hi ghtan,    the word "people" means "countrymen". Just because the countrymen are doing a bad act, does not mean that the prince is also co-operating with that same bad act. ie the prince has nothing to do with the destruction of the temple, its his countrymen who destroy the temple, not him.

 

The fact that verse 25 refers to a coming prince, and verse 26 also refers to a coming prince is a strong hint they are the same prince, ie its Jesus who is the coming prince. Jesus was from Galilee, and it was Jesus' countrymen the Galilean zealots who morally destroyed the temple before the Romans even arrived. The Romans in effect were God's agent of justice to destroy what the Jews had already corrupted.

 

The Hebrew word for "destroy" means to ruin. This word was often translated as physical destruction but was also translated as meaning rotting, poisoning and moral corruption.

 

 

 

============================================================================================================

 

 

the word "people" means "countrymen". Just because the countrymen are doing a bad act, does not mean that the prince is also co-operating with that same bad act. ie the prince has nothing to do with the destruction of the temple, its his countrymen who destroy the temple, not him.

 

 

Here we go again, Huh   ? 

 

So Titus Vespasian (A Literal "Prince".....see Father returning to Rome from Jerusalem and being crowned "Emperor"---- due to problems in Rome post Nero death..... where he and his son "Titus" were preparing to attack Jerusalem) with the 5th, 10th, 12th, and 15th Roman Legions.

 

Incidentally in the Interim-----when "Titus" Father had to return to ROME..... left the plan of the attack in somewhat shambles----- afforded a 9 month Hiatus in the attack; with those Roman Legions surrounding the city.....

Which then gave the Christians who heeded Christ's Warning (SEE: Luke 20:21 below) time to "Get out of Dodge" and escape to Perea. 

(Luke 21:20) " And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

 

 

So what you're saying is "Titus", the ROMAN "Prince", IN CHARGE of these ROMAN Legions who destroyed the Temple and the City in 70 AD...is not responsible/accountable and has nothing to do with it?     Is that what you're selling here?

 

No matter, who's the Roman "Prince's" People?

 

 

The fact that verse 25 refers to a coming prince, and verse 26 also refers to a coming prince is a strong hint they are the same prince,

 

 

Let's take a look....

 

(Daniel 9:25-26) "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 

{26} And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

 

So you're saying the Messiah the Prince (Verse 25) and the "prince" in Verse 26 are the same "prince"?  Which then leads to this....

 

Jesus who is the coming prince. Jesus was from Galilee, and it was Jesus' countrymen the Galilean zealots who morally destroyed the temple before the Romans even arrived. The Romans in effect were God's agent of justice to destroy what the Jews had already corrupted.

 

 

Let's carry this through to it's unequivocal conclusion....

 

So "the people" of the prince that shall come = "Galilean Zealots"      Are these "Galilean Zealots" Jews?  So Daniel/Gabriel is warning Jews that after the Messiah is executed... that the Temple and the Sanctuary would be destroyed....by Jews?  

 

So they destroyed the Temple.... morally, before the Romans arrived, eh?  Please and.......?

 

Aren't Jesus' "countrymen" Jews?

 

So then lets look @ Daniel 9:27....

 

(Daniel 9:27) "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

 

So according to you, the "he" above is Jesus Christ because the "he" is referring to the Antecedent "the prince"....which "you" have postulated that the "Messiah The Prince" and the "prince of the people that shall come" are One and the same.

 

ERGO.... in the midst of Daniel's 70th Week, Jesus Christ Will RETURN then will confirm a covenant with the many....AND THEN, will Cause...."the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate."

 

The Abomination of Desolation (Stand in The Holy Place, Matt 24:15) is someone other than GOD Stand in the Holy Place, Blaspheme and claim he is GOD.

 

So "you" have Jesus Christ:  returning in the Midst of Daniel's 70th Week: confirming a covenant with the many; and standing in the Holy Place Claiming he is GOD (Abomination of Desolation).

 

Forgive me, but it appears you haven't thought this through.

 

Care to re-consider?

 

 

** Please tell us why the City and The Temple were destroyed in 70 AD....?  Was the reason, as you said, because of the "Galilean Zealots" or another reason?

[ghtan]

Hi Argosy,

 

Sorry I missed the earlier posts because I live in a different time zone. With regards to the meaning of 'destroy' in Dan 9:26, revelant supporting examples should use the same object. Thankfully, there is a second object here, i.e. "city". I think you will find that most if not all other occurrences of shacahth with "city" as its object implies a physical destruction, e.g. that of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 18/19.

 

I understand your logic that when the same word is used in successive verses - in this case "prince" in v 25 and 26 - they should normally refer to the same subject. However, in this case, there is reason to believe that they do not. If the anointed one is cut off after 69 weeks - presumably, you would agree that this refers to Jesus' death - how can he confirm a covenant with many or put an end to sacrifices during the final week? Therefore, Daniel probably meant a different prince. It is after all a fairly common word.

 

It is easy enough to read the second prince as a Roman figure who confirmed a covenant with the Jews but then broke it and ended sacrifices by invading and destroying Jerusalem in AD70. Then, the first half of the final week was fulfilled historically, as you suggest.

Edited December 9, 2014 by ghtan

[Enoch2021]

Hi Argosy,

 

Sorry I missed the earlier posts because I live in a different time zone. With regards to the meaning of 'destroy' in Dan 9:26, revelant supporting examples should use the same object. Thankfully, there is a second object here, i.e. "city". I think you will find that most if not all other occurrences of shacahth with "city" as its object implies a physical destruction, e.g. that of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 18/19.

 

I understand your logic that when the same word is used in successive verses - in this case "prince" in v 25 and 26 - they should normally refer to the same subject. However, in this case, there is reason to believe that they do not. If the anointed one is cut off after 69 weeks - presumably, you would agree that this refers to Jesus' death - how can he confirm a covenant with many or put an end to sacrifices during the final week? Therefore, Daniel probably meant a different prince. It is after all a fairly common word.

 

It is easy enough to read the second prince as a Roman figure who confirmed a covenant with the Jews but then broke it and ended sacrifices by invading and destroying Jerusalem in AD70. Then, the first half of the final week was fulfilled historically, as you suggest.

 

 

============================================================================================================

 

 

It is easy enough to read the second prince as a Roman figure who confirmed a covenant with the Jews but then broke it and ended sacrifices by invading and destroying Jerusalem in AD70. Then, the first half of the final week was fulfilled historically, as you suggest.

 

 

That's still "off the Reservation".  The destruction of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary happens in Verse 26 after the Messiah is executed.  Verse 27 (Daniel's 70th Week) then speaks to the confirming of the Covenant and The Abomination of Desolation....no destruction of the City/Temple mentioned here.

 

Titus (Roman) never confirmed "a covenant" and he surely didn't commit the Abomination of Desolation.   

 

The scenario that you acquiesced to goes:  Confirm a Covenant by Titus------->Destruction of the City and Temple --------> Then to Verse 27 (This is Daniel's 70th Week) -----> Confirm a Another Covenant ?? ----->  Then what?

 

Confirm a Covenant by Titus is Erroneous in Verse 26.

 

The "he" in Verse 27 is a "Type"...the Prince (ac) will come from Old ROMAN Empire....most assuredly from the Eastern Leg of that Empire (The Byzantine) which covered....Assyria; He's an Assyrian.